Why You Shouldnt be a Vigilante

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

What we haven't discussed are alternative futures, no less hypothetical, where "the center does not hold", and government institutions are weakened and replaced by anarchy, gangs, and local war lords. This is just as plausible, considering that this is a scenario you see in places like Afghanistan, and that there are armed "militias" in the US that reject government authority. In this scenario, widespread availability of weapons could easily be seen decreasing the safety and liberty of our citizens.

The only thing to prevent scenario #2 is the willingness of individuals to do what is needed. A good case for vigilanteism(sp?) in service of the rightful(?) government. Thanks for giving me something to mull

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

"This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!"

You can just keep saying "No it isn't", but that does not change anything. It's also argumentum ad nauseam, though I'm quite sure you'll deny that, too...

Meh, it's sort of difficult to answer a question that hasn't been asked yet, don't you think? The straw man preceded my query. And remember, kalivor was not arguing that the 2nd Amendment needs "interpretation", but rather trying to refute the idea that it protects the ability of the citizenry to combat a tyrannical government. He was ridiculing the idea that a populace can fight a modern army with small arms alone...

Ok, once more, with feeling...

Originally Posted by kalivor

Strange ... do you think it's OK for an average citizen to own a tank then? Or how about warplanes, like bombers or fighter planes? Anti-tank or anti-aircraft artillary? Ballistic missile systems?

If you stop at any point and say 'Wait a minute, no! It's not ok for the average person to own a ....', then the 2nd amendment should not be used to justify the right of people to bear all arms. It is the right to bear some arms. Deciding what those arms actually are is a matter of interpretation. Therefore someone is not a priori justified in saying "I have a right to own this minigun! It's in the 2nd amendment!" You need to look at how the 2nd amendment is interpreted first. No sign of a straw man here.

The straw man argument, i.e. "It's not ok to own a tank (or nuclear weapon if you prefer). Tanks and guns are both arms. Therefore it's not ok to own gun" is just plain silly, of course. I don't think that's what kalivor was arguing. You do seem to think that's what he was arguing. Only kalivor can clear this up...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Oh? And who are you to decide what is "within the realm of reality"? Sorry, but I reject your attempt to restrict the debate only to concepts which strengthen your own position. Tsk.

You wrote earlier (I'm paraphrasing), "your argument is not in the realm of reality, so I'm discounting it". Why do you think that you are qualified to decide whether something is in the realm of reality and I'm not? Perhaps you'd prefer to restrict the debate only to concepts which strengthen your own position?

Ok, I'm being a bit unfair here, I just said "I think this is reasonable", where as you said "I think this isn't reasonable", and then gave a hypothetical situation showing why you thought it wasn't reasonable. I'm too lazy to to do the research to give an example .

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Again, "Nuh uh!" is not an argument. Thank you for playing our game. Here's your lovely parting gift:

I explained why there was no fallacy in my earlier post, I'll quote it here again:

The point that is being made is that it is possible to have a democratic society with similar (not identical, but similar) freedoms to those in the USA, without a constitutional right to bear arms. This isn't used to say that "therefore, the freedoms/democracy the US currently enjoys will be unchanged if the 2nd amendment is removed."

See 2/3rds of the way down page two of this thread for this paragraph in context.

Ok, when I start referring back to posts on earlier pages in the same thread, it's time to let this go . You can have the last word.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Another branch of the "center does not hold" scenario is instead of anarchy, armed citizens supporting local governments. History-even in the 20th cent-is full of cases of armed citizens comming to the aid of police or even the armed forces, though I haven't heard of any lately. Of the three men who went up that tower in Texas after our first 'sniper' two were uniformed officers, the third was a citizen with a rifle.

So, let's add up "total good to society". Does the fact that the good-guy citizen had a rifle balance the fact that the bad-guy citizen had one too and got to kill a few people before he got wasted?

gojujay: that's kind of along the lines of what you want to mull, I think. If this country ever decays into anarchy or widespread lawlessness, do you really think that there will be enough good guys with weapons to balance it? Heck, we could look at some places in high crime and drug areas where the bad guys have the weapons - you don't see a bunch of everyday citizens amassing the firepower to take them out, do you?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Neil

If you stop at any point and say 'Wait a minute, no! It's not ok for the average person to own a ....', then the 2nd amendment should not be used to justify the right of people to bear all arms. It is the right to bear some arms. Deciding what those arms actually are is a matter of interpretation. Therefore someone is not a priori justified in saying "I have a right to own this minigun! It's in the 2nd amendment!" You need to look at how the 2nd amendment is interpreted first. No sign of a straw man here.

Tsk! Quoting an isolated statement out of context! How very Bush-like of you!

Here's the rest of kalivor's thesis:

Honestly, if you think your right to own a handgun, rifle, or even an AK-47 is protecting you if the government decided to oppress you, you're kidding yourself. The American army can reduce a city to rubble without coming within miles of it, and there's nothing that a gun-toting citizen can do about it.

Yes, the second amendment is there because there was need for a revolution once, and the British tried to keep weapons out of the hands of the revolutionaries (imagine that!) In case there's a need for a new revolution, the citizens should have a right to be armed ...

It's an out of date amendment. The difference between those arms available to the public, and those available to the military are even further apart now than they were in 1776. Having a bunch of citizens armed with handguns and rifles going against a modern day army is like having a bunch of guys with foam swords and wiffle bats go up against a group with said rifles and handguns.

You see? He's arguing that the amendment is outmoded and hence of no utility, not that it wants interpretation. In that context, the ballistic-missile example is clearly a straw-man exaggeration of what most pro-RKBA people argue: that it is necessary to permit civilians the possession of such arms as would make it possible for them to fight a successful rebellion against a tyrannical central government.

The straw man argument, i.e. "It's not ok to own a tank (or nuclear weapon if you prefer). Tanks and guns are both arms. Therefore it's not ok to own gun" is just plain silly, of course.

As is the wont of straw man arguments. Yes.

I don't think that's what kalivor was arguing. You do seem to think that's what he was arguing. Only kalivor can clear this up...

He's probably having far too much fun laughing up his sleeve at us.

However, I can cite him second-hand:

Originally Posted by kalivor

Yes, but it was a well-built straw man. I liked his hat.

You wrote earlier (I'm paraphrasing), "your argument is not in the realm of reality, so I'm discounting it".

Eh, er, um....where?

Why do you think that you are qualified to decide whether something is in the realm of reality and I'm not? Perhaps you'd prefer to restrict the debate only to concepts which strengthen your own position?

I knew I should have put another smily in that paragraph; only there's this stupid limit on how many one can use in a single post...

Ok, I'm being a bit unfair here, I just said "I think this is reasonable", where as you said "I think this isn't reasonable", and then gave a hypothetical situation showing why you thought it wasn't reasonable. I'm too lazy to to do the research to give an example

Bah, fairness...an imaginary creature, like griffins, dragons, unicorns and honest politicians...don't give it another thought!

The point that is being made is that it is possible to have a democratic society with similar (not identical, but similar) freedoms to those in the USA, without a constitutional right to bear arms. This isn't used to say that "therefore, the freedoms/democracy the US currently enjoys will be unchanged if the 2nd amendment is removed."

But I think that is the unspoken inference, precisely. It is underlined by the earlier thesis that:

Originally Posted by kalivor

It's an out of date amendment.

If it's out of date, and it doesn't serve it's stated purpose, and it isn't necessary for the preservation of liberty anyway, then the only logical conclusion is that it may be dispensed with without untoward effect.
( For the record, I do not agree with any of those three premises. )

It is fallacious in that it contains an unspoken fourth premise: that the US is like all those other countries, hence dispensing with the 2nd Amendment protections would have results like those in countries which have revoked their citizens' rights to arms. Thus the fallacy of division.

Ok, when I start referring back to posts on earlier pages in the same thread

See? You are not so lazy after all!

You can have the last word.

Killjoy.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

So, let's add up "total good to society". Does the fact that the good-guy citizen had a rifle balance the fact that the bad-guy citizen had one too and got to kill a few people before he got wasted?

gojujay: that's kind of along the lines of what you want to mull, I think. If this country ever decays into anarchy or widespread lawlessness, do you really think that there will be enough good guys with weapons to balance it? Heck, we could look at some places in high crime and drug areas where the bad guys have the weapons - you don't see a bunch of everyday citizens amassing the firepower to take them out, do you?

First point; If that was the sum all the pros and cons of this arguement, then no I don't think it balances out. I was trying to make a point about ordinary people supporting police at great personal risk to counterbalance the widespread lawlessness and anarchy theme.

Second point; Many of the places where the bad guys have weapons everyday citizens are restricted from owning them, D.C. for example. Also in many parts of the country, urban areas come to mind, people are under the mistaken belief that the police exsist to protect them. They don't. They arrest criminals after they have committed a crime! Only you can protect you.

[jeff]

Okay: we both recognise that the civilian can either be on the good-guy side helping, or the bad-guy side harming - the question is how to quantify, and I think we agree for now where the balance lies. Nobody really knows how it might turn out in some hypothetical future - that's the nifty thing about hypothetical futures, eh? For the second part - well, I would disagree with that and so would the police departments. the idea being, among other things, that law enforcement deters to crime.

The reason I brought up the whole subject is because there's been a repeated theme of "we need guns in order to defend ourselves from a (hypothetical) dictatorship or occupation some time in the future". My point is that it's equally easy to have hypothetical futures (that's the nifty thing about them again...) where wide distribution of weapons widely endangers the population.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

gojujay: that's kind of along the lines of what you want to mull, I think. If this country ever decays into anarchy or widespread lawlessness, do you really think that there will be enough good guys with weapons to balance it? Heck, we could look at some places in high crime and drug areas where the bad guys have the weapons - you don't see a bunch of everyday citizens amassing the firepower to take them out, do you?

I believe that is primarily because everyday citizens tend to be law-abiding types. The reality is that gun laws only affect the law-abiding citizen, although one could say that that(gr?) is the result of the pacification of the average citizen; I could give the argument of unreported, officially, incidents, but how does one support that argument without resorting to statistical hocus-pocus, which in turn is refuted by more statistical mumbo-jumbo. Abra-cadabra

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Also in many parts of the country, urban areas come to mind, people are under the mistaken belief that the police exsist to protect them. They don't. They arrest criminals after they have committed a crime! Only you can protect you.

Point of fact (quibbling I know ). The police exist to protect society at large, not individuals in said society. Thank you, I feel much better now

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

For the second part - well, I would disagree with that and so would the police departments. the idea being, among other things, that law enforcement deters to crime.

I think you may actually be proving my point here Gojay is right, the police protect society at large not the individual. Yet you think the police protect you. While the police protect society I don't expirence life as 'society', I expirence life as an individual and the two times in my life that I was assulted the police weren't around and did not 'protect' me.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I believe that is primarily because everyday citizens tend to be law-abiding types.

Right - normal people going about their normal lives, with houses, families, and worry about Junior's grades. Things to worry about in general, which makes them unlikely to go off like Rambo.

Originally Posted by gojujay

snip...I could give the argument of unreported, officially, incidents, but how does one support that argument without resorting to statistical hocus-pocus, which in turn is refuted by more statistical mumbo-jumbo. Abra-cadabra

Hey, it aint mumbo-jumbo - it's good stuff! Just got to be careful to watch out for the BS merchants...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I think you may actually be proving my point here

Glad to lend a helping hand - call me any time!

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Gojay is right, the police protect society at large not the individual. Yet you think the police protect you. While the police protect society I don't expirence life as 'society', I expirence life as an individual and the two times in my life that I was assulted the police weren't around and did not 'protect' me.

Notwithstanding all the times the police were around, and the Bad Guys didn't assault you or me because they feared being arrested. Anything that improves the average experience has the expectation of improving our individual experiences as well.

I don't think there's too much argument that if you're alone and the Bad Guys attack you, it's nice to have an equalizer in your pocket (though - I'll add I knew a fencer who did. He's dead because he and the burglar killed each other). What I think worth thinking about is the idea that the total cost of widespread weapons is underestimated if we only consider scenarios in which they wind up being used for beneficial purposes....

[40Saberthieves]

Originally Posted by Neil

Ok, once more, with feeling..

The straw man argument, i.e. "It's not ok to own a tank (or nuclear weapon if you prefer). Tanks and guns are both arms. Therefore it's not ok to own gun" is just plain silly, of course. I don't think that's what kalivor was arguing. You do seem to think that's what he was arguing. Only kalivor can clear this up...

Oh, but they are allowed. State militas have tanks and artillery. Anyway, I would define arms as something that is man-portable. Rifles, stinger missiles, RPGs, etc

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

What I think worth thinking about is the idea that the total cost of widespread weapons is underestimated if we only consider scenarios in which they wind up being used for beneficial purposes....

Do you believe that this standard should be used to evaluate other things we use? How about cars? Or alcohol?

Also I stated I was assulted twice. I managed to fight off my attackers both times, what I didn't mention was that I was almost assulted a third time. The third time I had a gun, which scared off my would-be attacker. The police(at least where I live) don't keep records of 'almost assults'. So how can we quantifliably know how often that sort of thing happens? One study I heard of states that 'scareing off' an assailant happens about 3 million times a year, but that's just one study.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Do you believe that this standard should be used to evaluate other things we use? How about cars? Or alcohol?

Uh, yeah - all I'm talking about is cost-benefit analysis. We sometimes have such analysis, though we don't always want to pay attention to the results or we decide that we're going to carry on anyway (eg: 50,000 deaths per year on US roads). Please remember the context I was responding to: sci-fi visions of the future where its a Darn Good Thing (tm) there are weapons in lots of hands; it's only fair to point out that there are possible scenarios in which it's a Bad Idea (tm).

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Also I stated I was assulted twice. I managed to fight off my attackers both times, what I didn't mention was that I was almost assulted a third time. The third time I had a gun, which scared off my would-be attacker. The police(at least where I live) don't keep records of 'almost assults'. So how can we quantifliably know how often that sort of thing happens? One study I heard of states that 'scareing off' an assailant happens about 3 million times a year, but that's just one study.

I've been assaulted, too (I grew up in Brooklyn and went to school in some bad neighborhoods). How can we quantify it? Beats me - not my area. But it's a good idea, if we're going to quantify at all, we have to try to quantify both negative and positive consequences (hence my mention of the dead fencer).

[Bokken]

All things considered, I think the debate over the second amendment boils down to a simple issue of trust and responsibility.
Do I, as Joe Citizen (tm), trust someone else to always watch over me and keep me safe from Evil McNasty (tm) the Criminal or John Q. Dictator (tm) the power-drunk politico?
Or instead, do I assume responsibility for my own personal safety and take the steps I feel are necessary to ensure it?

Contrariwise, does Jane Public (tm) trust that Joe Citizen, whom she sees stocking up on guns, ammo, and >generic higher power< knows what else, won't flip his lid and kill her?
Or instead, does she try to restrict Joe's ability to obtain said weapons in an effort to secure her own safety?


"FOLLOW THE GOURD! FOLLOW THE GOURD!!"

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Neil

The straw man argument, i.e. "It's not ok to own a tank (or nuclear weapon if you prefer). Tanks and guns are both arms. Therefore it's not ok to own gun" is just plain silly, of course. I don't think that's what kalivor was arguing. You do seem to think that's what he was arguing. Only kalivor can clear this up...

Fine, fine fine. Though I'd like to point out that this is the first I've checked in on this thread since my last post on it, and I'm not going to read everything that's been posted since. I'm not an American, and so only care a little about the state of the 2nd Amendment.

1. I don't think it's OK to own a gun. My personal opinion. Gun ownership, particularly U.S.-style gun ownership seems stupid and scary to me. Particularly those who think that everybody owning a gun would lead to a safer world/country/neighbourhood.

2. I *was* ridiculing the fact that the 2nd Amendment does not distinguish between the type of arms one is free to bear. I think allowing an ordinary citizen to possess a tank or weapon of mass destruction or somesuch is rediculous, hence the amendment is rediculous. I left the conclusion ("hence gun ownership is rediculous") as an exercise for the reader, but the straw-man argument was implied. I owned up to it.

3. That being said, the argument could easily be rebuilt into an attack on the 2nd amendment that doesn't include the straw-man argument, and doesn't attack ths issue of gun ownership. I leave this as an exercise to the reader, as I prefer to attack gun ownership, personally.

In any case, I feel honoured (complete with Canadian spelling!) that my post is still being debated a week later. What a great, wonderous post it must have been! But it does make me wonder ... if my post is so worthy, where are the rep points to go along with it?

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

How can we quantify it? Beats me - not my area. But it's a good idea, if we're going to quantify at all, we have to try to quantify both negative and positive consequences (hence my mention of the dead fencer).

I think being able to quantify the positives and negatives would be great. Unfortunately the negatives are VERY easy to quantify where the positives are not. The gun media(yes there is such) like to tout studies by Gary Kleck(?) and John Lott where they state there are 3 MILLION non-leathal defensive gun incidents per year. I find this very suspect, though there was no record of my own non-leathal gun use. I really don't know how anyone could accurately study this.

There are many differing ideas about gun ownership. I, myself, would like people to be licenced. I'd like to know that if you had a gun you knew something about how to handle it. The problem with this is that in some places across the country that require licences granting said licences is very subjective. Those with money and/or connections don't seem to have any trouble, while others do.